The aviation industry is set to launch a campaign to combat the growing flight shaming movement led by Greta Thunberg. The campaign comes as weakened demand has been reported in Europe. (simpleflying.com) More...

- I guess we can thank MH370 for keeping Thunberg in the limelight, which is the Green's propaganda aim. Is the brainwashed young victim still stuck in Chile ? If so, probably besieged by anarchists in the streets of Santiago, waiting to bum a ride on some non-polluting magic carpet, back across the Atlantic :)

I think the "brainwashed child" mime that is circulating on social media is totally out of line. I view her as a very courageous young woman who is frustrated with politicians' inaction in dealing with an existential threat to the planet.

I can see how a 16 y/o Swedish girl can be frustrated with the inaction of politicians. With all of her experience in life and knowledge of global economics, we should stop everything and listen to what she has to say. When I was 16, I had ALL the answers too, but I was too busy chasing girls and being a kid to voice those answers to the world.

What I find interesting is they are using her as a virtual human shield. If someone tries to go at her with logic, common sense or have an actual discussion the response seems to be "Why are you bullying a girl?". If we look at recent history, we have a college kid who was attacked all throughout the media for not losing his cool or saying anything when a known NA activist beat a drum in his face. How many people verbally attacked him with comments like (paraphrase) "have you ever seen a more punchable face?".If we look to maintain decorum, we can have a conversation but not if the only answer is essentially "think what I think and believe what I believe, or else"..On that same note as others in the comments though, why ISN't she in China, India or the Middle East trying to get THEM to see the error of their ways?

As seriously as the media takes her. Which must be pretty seriously because we are all talking about her. I’d be plenty fine with the media NOT providing her a platform and then we’d not have to take her seriously.

Get a life, Greta. Still the best, fastest, safest, and most economic form of transportation there is and will be for years to come. It's like the plastic bag argument. Several cities including (I'm ashamed to say) Austin, have 'banned' plastic bags from grocery stores. But yet, they have offered no alternatives in the process, thus causing the end user more money. What do they say? Buy a few reusable 'green bags' or pay $0.50/a piece extra for paper bags - which they put groceries in FOR FREE before plastic bags were even a thing.

F off. Point made. Get outta here unless you can create an alternative that is just as good, CHEAP, and EFFICIENT as Jet-A.

As to reading, your grammar needs work. Her speeches are obviously written for her and well rehearsed. Caught off the cuff, boarding the boat back to Europe, she sounded like any self absorbed teen who seemed immensely intimidated by half a dozen journalists without a clue what to say. Hardly a mindset activist.

CO2 is .0004 of the atmosphere, and is distributed like other gases. It’s a colorless odorless plant food. Water vapor is the real green house gas. Except for rain and clouds and such, water vapor must be an existential threat to the planet. It does cause airplanes to crash from time to time. Let’s get rid of it! Morons of the world unite!

.004 responds to .04%. of the atmosphere. Global warming is supposed to happen. but naturally. So is global cooling. All of our resources have been made of Earthly resources, thus we cannot "influence" global warming in the way the press, media, or even government claims - because as simply as this - all our resources come from Earth. Again, F-off. y'all will lose in the end, you're assembled to do is cause a 'global panic', which us realists will see through and live on into the future. Deep, am I??? Well get over it or accept it. It's the real, uninfluenced truth. We are in the midst of a 'global warming' period based on our position around the sun. We have nothing to do with it.

To add to that, I once had our primary Flight Professor/Engineer/Meteorologist tell us, in Aviation Weather class mind you -which is very equivalent to what meteorologists learn in school - tell us human kind is not capable of destroying the Earth - only itself. "Earth will go on as we continue to know it and even more.: whether we choose to robotize it or make it emotional/human ism our choice. Automation is the future even for the airline business."

It seems to me , that Deniers are more focused on tearing down Greta , than considering climate concerns . You may be able to destroy Greta , but be assured , others will take her place . While my generation is presently in control , the youngsters who can't vote yet , and have the greatest to lose ,are coming along ,and they will not be silenced by us old farts ...............

It’s because the ‘Deniers’ (as you label them) haven’t drunk the Kool-Aid. For most of us, wisdom comes with age. Youth comes with it’s benefits (energy, idealism, imagination), but wisdom must be earned with time and fostering a mind that stays open to learning. And it is the wise that see the climate scare-mongers for what they are. Everyone believes the world would be a better place, if only they had complete control. That is what is truly scary about these events.

Much to my horror, a couple from my home town in Perth, Australia are set to transport Greta back to Europe on their large ocean going catamaran which they have been sailing around the world for a couple of years. They stated that they are trying to remain neutral in the whole saga, but feel that she is having a bad run and is in need of help to get home as her options are pretty limited. The return journey wont be nearly as fast as her original trip across the Atlantic.

Ridiculous campaign, flying is the greatest timesaving method of transport! Enabled so much prosperity from business to tourism. How much time do ppl have, going on 2 week long sea crossings like its the 1800s.

This is an aviation forum and aviation as a whole has been made the target of a movement that is as much a religion to the believers as it is political. Putting their motives and lack of factual data aside, the outcome of their actions will impact everyone. If we declare policy changes political and not to be discussed, we have are heads in a dark, odoriferous location.

- I agree. Very well put, canuck44. As a climate SKEPTIC, I choose reason and analysis to weigh scientific evidence. The language of climate religion is very revealing. They use the words "climate denier " to label skeptics as Heretics to their articles of faith. Especially in academia, the tactics smack of the Inquisition.

If the only way to continue living on the planet is to revert to the Stone Age, maybe we should all just save time and gather everyone in one place, form a big circle, and on an agreed signal all cap the person to the right.

You would have to include electric cars for it turns out they are more energy pigs than fossil fuel. Besides the generation and transmission of power the mining and refining of the lithium is energy bleeding, but tends to kill the folks doing the recovery as radioactive material has to be separated. This is why there are no active lithium refining in the USA although one is planned in Texas.

Social media and video games will ruin the world! Suggest we start a movement to ban all Facebook, Twitter, etc: , and any Violent video games!I you want to talk to someone, do it the old fashion way! Pick up a real telephone and call them!"Just Saying"

Umm.. So since our beloved aviation industry is in fact acknowledging environmental issues and is in fact working hard towards more efficiency, less carbon, less noise, etc., how (and why) is Greta so wrong about spurring this along? Why the hate? The planet does have a problem, ya know..! Or maybe you don't?

You’ve drank the Kool-Aid. But not all hope is lost for you. Start asking probing questions. What you’ll find is that once you start to question the ‘science’ behind climate change, you will be labelled, abused, shutdown, ridiculed and shamed. But no real answers will be forthcoming. That will be your clue that there is something amiss.

Hal, Hal, Hal, Climate Change?? Global warming, you are misinformed, not the rest of us, a couple of million years of documented cyclical changes to climate are well published, but all of a sudden cows, jets and SUV's are ruining life on earth. Listen follow your Goddesses, AOC and Warren, they will lead all you lemmings into the sea, thank god for that, we only have to wait 12 years until you are all gone...whew!

Well, Dan and Mark, what are we actually arguing about? Sounds like you agree that Climate Change is inevitable and part of this planet’s natural cycle. If so, no argument there. The science shows that every cycle snuffed out most life on Earth. I hope we can all agree with that.

So the question is, what’s the Kool Aid I’m, supposedly drinking? Is it that I’m believing a majority of scientists, NASA, the ISS data, and all the climate agencies on Earth that tell us it’s happening faster than we thought. If so, it’s seems to be the only thing we differ on.

Thus I seem to have missed the “Deniers’” argument. Perhaps the point is more moral than idealogical? If a meteor the size of the Gulf of Mexico were heading towards Earth, we could shrug and say, hey that’s life, it’s happened before. Or we could put our heads together and see what we can do to deflect, delay, or mitigate it, even if it's inevitable--we can see we tried. Or do we do nothing and blame "the meteor" on Greta..

My observation is that the industry has already decided to take (Kool Aid) action, while the Deniers have decided to demonise Greta.

The science does NOT show that every climate change snuffed out most life on Earth. Science DOES show that when the earth was warmer than it is now, life flourished. When it was colder, life suffered. Since I am a living creature, the oft forecasted ice age would scare me. Where I live now would turn into a glacier.

There is little science in ‘climate science’. Not because of anyone’s fault, but because the climate does not lend itself to the scientific method, which by the way, encourages doubt and questioning. In today’s political ‘climate’, those who are easily alarmed (they exist in all times) have been been stirred into a frenzy that is more religion than science.

The reason that this is important is because the real and PROVEN danger to civilizations is tyranny. Over and over in history, tyrants manufacture or use crisis in order to seize power. It is this PROVEN danger that I would like to avoid. Those who are most on the bandwagon touting that humans are responsible for doing something about climate change very clearly are out to damage standards of living and limit population growth. And of course, centralization of power is necessary to accomplish those things. Much like has happened in other tyrannies, such as in China.

Those who willingly are tools for the tyrants-in-waiting will receive my ire.

Unfortunately, many of these comments are not worth the time to read and are evidence of a dearth of thinking. Greta has a perfect right to believe and communicate her thoughts on the very critical subject of climate change.

‘Greta’s voyage has had its own critics, who have pointed out that some members of the sailing crew will return by plane, while others fly in to sail the boat back to Europe. Boris Herrmann, captain of the sailboat, Malizia II, said that the criticism was expected but that Greta shouldn’t be held responsible for the flights by crew members. “We are kind of the ferry to bring her over. We’re a professional sailing team and sometimes we need to fly. The trip is an example of how difficult it is to have zero carbon impact.”’

As seen in the comments on the page linked to for the article, using a sailboat might be carbon neutral, but it is anything but to manufacture it. She does not realize that such takes place and at a higher rate than flying.

If you can believe those lying climate change deniers at the Wall Street Journal, it is the captain of the sailboat that is saying that the crew did not all sail back, some took a plane back, and some took a plane to the U.S. to sail the plane back.

Is your post an admission of spreading falsehoods? Or do you claim your veracity is better than the Wall Street Journa?

People need to realize that Greta Thunberg is a proxy of folks like George Soros and those who want to do away with fossil fuels--and pretty much civilization as we know it. Greta Thunberg doesn't understand that a jet engine will not run on biodiesel or anything else and if she gets her way the entire planet will reach 3rd world status in no time.

OK Boomer. I guess you confirmed all of this by watching FOX? You haven't heard that parts of Europe can already run their country for days on end with renewables? And they've only just begun to build them out? Not aware of the Tesla battery in Australia that almost paid itself off in a year? Not aware that jet fuel can be created to be carbon neutral?

The alternative is not to live like the 3rd world (which is hardly carbon neutral). It's to allow our technology to advance past the Oil Age. Like we advanced past the Steam Age (Coal Age). Do you look at history books and say "what a bunch of morons, letting horses be replaced by engines!"??

Technology is already changing and will continue to change, whether you like it or not. Economics are driving it. The only problem is with knuckle-draggers who are terrified of change and will do anything to delay. They tend to put it in terms like '3rd world status'... SMH

Brock, your opinions don’t sound much different than mine. I am a firm believer in economic driven technological solutions to the world’s problems. However, I am surprised that you SEEM to be championing Greta Thunberg, who is not in agreement with us. She believes the answer is reducing our standard of living, of doing without. But, perhaps you are with the majority of the rest of us who see that. You just have a weird way of saying it.

That's where you're losing me Dan. Greta only says that we must make changes to ensure our ongoing survival as a species. The scientific community is in full agreement with that. It's only delayists, denialists and politicians in the pocket of big corporations who take issue with it. And try to convince us with BS living-in-a-cave scenarios. She says that we must listen to science and the scientists, rather than decide what we want to 'believe'... which seems to trend towards what is easiest and cheapest - quelle surprise.

The scientific community is not in full agreement. Dig deeper. Just as you have joined the abuse of those who question the unproven theories, so has the media. There are many scientists who question the alarmists’ claims, but instead of proof being presented to satisfy their doubts, they are shamed. Again, religious behavior not worthy of true scientists.

Stop abusing those who ask for scientific proof. Dig deeper. Ask intelligent questions. When you don’t get good answers, you may just open your eyes and your mind and realize we are being taken for a ride. And Greta is just a tool who has nothing to offer but her vulnerability, which is why she is being cultivated as a spokesperson.

Climate alarmism is the unproven ‘belief’. If it isn’t, there would be proof behind the claims. I have searched high and low for it, but there is none, and all that is offered is unfounded claims, ‘consensus’, and abuse of those who would even dare to play the role of doubter as required by good science.

'not in full agreement'... you mean those three discredited hacks who disagree with the (literally) thousands of scientists who have found consensus? The 'scientists' whose work has been found sorely lacking or flawed through peer review (what real scientists do)? Yeah, I'm going to throw the baby out with the bathwater because of those nutjobs. Clearly you're not asking any questions, let alone intelligent questions if you're taking their word over that of the thousands who aren't paid by Big Oil, the military industrial complex, etc.

It's sad that your vision of the world is so narrow and easily influenced by nonsense. If we all went your way, there would be consensus that the world is flat and smoking Camels is great for your throat.

Let me guess... you also believe in God, right? Pretty sure I'm right about that, because your sort of blind belief fits squarely with religion... which absolutely requires blind faith and compliance to control its congregation. If anyone starts to think for themselves, the gig is up.

Ah, so it's all about jet fuel? No desire to work towards solutions? If it doesn't exist today as 'viable' (whatever your definition of that is), it never will, never can?

https://phys.org/news/2019-09-synthetic-fuels-carbon-footprint.html

The technology exists. It's more expensive today, just like EV's were a few years ago. I've never said it's going to happen this afternoon or by the end of the week, but clearly we're heading in that direction. Impeding progress is simply ignorant and serves absolutely no purpose.

Do I have all the answers? Hell no. But the difference between me and you is I'm looking for them, advocating for them and calling out fools where I find them. Is that 'woke' enough for you? Maybe if I was closer to death I'd care less...

Perhaps your comprehension skills aren't as sharp as your acerbic wit. I asked if there were a viable alternative currently available for jet fuel and you send me a link that tells me what synthetic fuels COULD do--not what's available. You seem to be sincere in your quest for solutions that will improve life on this planet, but if you're trying to convince people to listen to and possibly use this technology it ain't working.

Again, missing the point Bill. Purposely? Re-read my last two paragraphs above. 'Viable' is going to be different for everyone. EV's were 'viable' decades ago, but overly-costly and anemic. 'Viable' wasn't the consensus. Yet today, EV's are taking over and will kill the ICE auto industry. Are killing it already, in fact.

But your original point was all about the conspiracy theory of George Soros...etc. Now shifting to a debate over what constitutes 'viable'. Bait and switch... standard denialist strategy.

Do not take my failure to respond to any of your further comments as a victory. I try not to hold conversations with opinionated interlopers who have already decided it's their way or the highway. Thanks for playing.

Good, maybe Greta can go straight back to central-casting where she was found, coached and made to look a bit silly. If she (aka - her handlers & puppet masters) were serious they would be asking to meet with the Chinese to express their (completely non-pragmatic) demands directly. But somehow I don't think so.

I wouldnt worry about it, Melbourne is building an extra runway to cope with demand. I doubt if more than 10 people in the world are going to 'stop flying' anyone signing up to this nonsense was not going anywhere anyway.

This girl has all the answers, she should run for the Democratic nomination for President of the US, she would be a great fit with the current group of day dreamers like Warren and Sanders. I wonder if she is an investor in Al Gores company that sells carbon credits? Is there a chance she can sue the Wright Brothers for starting this mess ?

She is a scripted 16 year old useful idiot funded in part by George Soros. Like David "Camera" Hogg, the anti-gun teenagers, she will be cast aside as her usefulness fades. Notice she doesn't attack any of the world's major carbon polluters China or India.

The alarmists have a new theme as a flawed study proclaiming 11,000 plus scientists have jumped on the fear wagon. The problem is only 240 of them are actual meteorologists, climate scientists or atmosphere researchers. The list includes an OB-GYN, a gender studies academic, psychologists, numerous "journalists", etc. However, because few will look at the list, the media will proclaim the veracity of the dogma until the next useful idiot comes along...while the earth continues to cool in its normal cycle..

No actually I am a refugee from the Canadian Health care system living in Florida for the last 30 years, but as one who as a hobby studies history of science and the military, I am bemused by the same pattern repeating for all the topics of the left. Declare a crisis, find a semi-sympathetic (more pathetic) spokesperson or symbol, promote it in the friendly media, declare a dogma, demand government (taxpayer) policy always dipping into the trough for friends. The average life of these individuals is two years until the left moves on to the next crisis and dredges up another useful idiot upon which the media can dwell.

Climate Change has become a religion even as research and data eat away at the narrative. The Chicken Little number du jour is 12 years repeated continuously with no science behind it and no even unmanipulated data to support it.

You will notice the world expert on polar bear populations was just fired by the University of Victoria for debunking the Alarmist narrative when she released data showing the bear population is many times previously reported and places like Fort Churchill have a problem with overpopulation. That does not matter to the Climate Mullahs who demanded she be fired and the University did so. This represents everything you need to know about the veracity of the dogma.

sorry , i don't buy your denials . Of course it appears as though the divide will continue . But is such a high stacks game , you'd better be sure . We might not have the time to correct the damage when you are proved wrong ...Thanks for your response however . It is appreciated ........DGR

There were no denials in my posting, only observations and reporting of events. Of course there is a divide but the fulcrum will change. "Settled Science" told us the world was flat but gradually observations swung that consensus to the current thinking although a few flat earth types persist. Climate change however is ideal for the left as the endpoint is well beyond so they are able to peddle the dogma based on computer projections which to date 100% have been wrong. The problem they face is that everyone knows climate change is real, but what is not necessarily real is that man is responsible for change and skepticism is enhanced when manipulation of data, cherry picking, suppression of data and selection of advantageous starting points are exposed.

- No. the little child is the one being led as a sympathetic stage prop, by unprincipled zealots who want political power to pursue a utopian agenda. Notice you won't see Greta being paraded anywhere in China. China is the largest, fastest growing source of air pollution. The shameless ones pushing poor little Greta onto Western nation stages are elitists, eager to dictate Everyones energy choices.

Great opportunity to make yourselves stand out in the crowd. Pick out a Nobel Peace prize nominee, who is autistic but who is so engaging that she has been invited to address the UN on Climate Change issues, and then target her with an ad campaign to push for allowing multiple pollution models. This is a really smart, no, make that a genius operation. Please be sure and claim your prize for coming up with the entire campaign. Please.

I find it surprising that this young Lady , who has my personal support has been drawing such high powered putdowns . If what Greta has been speaking , is patently un true , no one would pay her any attention . Global warming and climate change is here . Wishing it away , will not change this fact . And please don't show your ignorance by telling me it is cold and snowing outside your door , and therefore it is all Lies !! IATA oddly enough trotted out their Stats about pollution , but also deny Greta's are wrong .Carbon based ,oil based fuels will have to be reduced ........Thats my position ..I'd like to hear any comments .....DGR

Your surprise is due to you not attempting to understand what is really going on, but just accepting what people tell you. Open your mind, start asking good questions, probe deep. You mischaracterize those you feel are your adversaries as being idiots and therefore make no effort to understand things from all perspectives.

Congrats on missing the obvious. Science isn't belief, which was my point. Being a denier is much like believing in Santa Claus. All the evidence points to him not existing, yet you want to BELIEVE, so you do. You apparently accept Bernoulli's Principle, because you accept that a plane can fly. Yet you can't accept science that doesn't fit your narrative?

In the case of climate change denialism, it's mostly about fear... fear of the future, fear of not being in control. Fear that can't be overcome - mostly due to cowardice.

Oh Brock, when you cannot justify your position, you resort to name calling, it is a natural reaction when one’s religion is challenged. Another sign that ‘climate science’ is more religion than science. I will not do you the same disservice, but will instead do what is right. I will use facts and good reasoning to suggest how you are wrong.

Here is the first definition of ‘science’ from the dictionary that I received in college. (Yes, believe it or not, I did go, and earned an engineering degree).

What from this definition is missing from what you refer to as ‘climate science’? The climate does not lend itself to experimental investigation, which is a cornerstone of real science. Without the ability to experiment, one is left with unfounded theories that cannot be scientifically proven.

Here is another good definition to consider, that for the ‘scientific method’, as provided by Wikipedia:

“The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.[1][2][3]”

Two very important points you should consider. 1. The scientific method REQUIRES experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypothesis. Without that THERE IS NO PROOF and NO SCIENCE. Who has been able to conduct such experiments on the climate? Hence, the scientific method cannot be applied, which means there is no true science, and what we are left with is speculation and ‘consensus’, which is the buzz word today used extensively in place of real scientific proof. 2. One must apply rigorous skepticism as part of the scientific method. I am doing that! And you abuse me for it. You, my friend, apparently are no fan of the scientific method and science in general.

Open your mind. Don’t blindly accept the baloney you are being force fed. Ask intelligent questions, learn to reason and make intelligent conclusions. It is much more satisfying than just calling people ‘Complete Morons’ that you have no desire and have made no effort to understand.

I might remind Brock Nanson that it's difficult to engage in a battle of wits with someone who comes to the show unarmed. Climate change is evidenced all over the globe with positive proof that is available for any one who is willing to open their eyes and remember how conditions have changed during their lives.

Ha! Yes, James, I agree. My mother always told me I was unable to suffer fools. I freely admit this to be the case and I will often take on this sort of 'discussion' as entertainment. Deniers inevitably retreat to strawman nonsense, such as this definition of science! I wonder who went to the sun to do experimental investigation to determine its composition and reaction... *for sure*...? LOL... I guess we can't accept the science relating to it either.

Worse yet, he says he graduated from an engineering program. I find that quite disappointing, since engineers are in fact, Applied Scientists. To be unable to understand and accept science and call yourself an engineer is - at the very least - eyebrow raising. I can only hope he isn't practicing as a P.E. anywhere.

I've had my fun with him... triggering the strawman stuff is an indication the battle is done!

If there was any evidence of wits from Brock, perhaps it would be a battle. I don’t count name calling as ‘wits’. As for your suggestion, you have proposed a straw man to strike down, rather than addressing my well reasoned and substantiated assertions. I have never denied that the climate changes. My other posts indicate that I agree the evidence very strongly suggests that it has changed for at least a billion years. My belief is that it will continue to change.

A significant problem with those who allow themselves to get caught up in the climate alarmism is that, to continue to believe as they desire, they must assign ridiculous assertions to others so that they can close their mind and ignore them. Please don’t do that, it does not serve you well.

If you have a problem with the content of my post, with either assumptions, information, reasoning, or conclusions, then state it. Otherwise I will make the reasonable assumption that you are the one who was arrived unarmed.

It is not the aviation industry that is the big polluters. Back when I was an automobile mechanic, I was also an emissions testing technician in the Metro Atlanta area. We had to take classes to get certified to do such. There are many different sources of hydrocarbon emissions and it isn't just airplanes as noted in the article. Mobile and stationary devices or businesses all contribute.

Why does Southern California have such long commute times? https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2017/11/06/survey-la-ranks-1-most-stressful-commute-in-us/

Why is the commute around Metro Atlanta so bad? https://atlanta.curbed.com/2018/6/22/17492552/atlanta-traffic-commutes-nation-study

Due to the kind of work I do, I have no choice but to drive as an inspector. It has taken me 1.5 hours to drive 15 miles, through the middle of Atlanta, east to west trying to avoid the choked interstates at rush hour. There are those who sit in traffic for up to 2 hours.

What do both SoCal and Metro Atlanta have in common? Educated peoples who live outside of Atlanta or LA (or any other number of cities in SoCal) and thought it better to drive so far than live closer to work due to possible other issues.

I have asked what people are willing to give up to help combat climate change and the biggest thing people will not give up are their own motor vehicles. They also do not want to forgo electricity, even if from some sort of hydrocarbon powered plant. No one wants to push for more nuclear power plants to wean ourselves off of coal or some type of fuel. Until those who want people to give up flying gets rid of their own pollution creating devices and move into a cave, don't try to tell others what or how they can use for their lives.

A bunch of old men yelling at a 16 year old girl trying to make the world a better place by doing pretty much the only thing she can in the face of governments and corporations unwilling to change themselves because of money. Calling her names, insulting her conditions, calling her a puppet, putting it all down as a conspiracy because youre too god damn dumb to draw any other conclusions. You all should take a good look in the mirror. Disgusting that the aviation community is filled with such narrow minded bigots like we see in the comments here. Sure we can accuse her of being hypocritical taking planes and all, but even the inventor of the combustion engine had to use horse and carriage to get around first. Its not about her, and shes said that mulitple times. Its about listening to scientist. Im sure the aviation community has the common sense to believe people who know what they are doing, given the nature of what pilots do for a living. You all should hang your heads in shame and i hope someone lets you know to your face how moronic you sound

Well, lead the way! Park your car, shut off your computer and chargers for every device you have (forever), no more flying, grow your own food, and the biggest "climate offender" -- no more Air Conditioning for you. Oh also, no more breathing (too much CO2, that giant portion of our atmosphere).

You just proved how stupid you all are. I never said anything about what youre commenting about. I realize the reality of the situation. I get it. Im not gona stop flying. The point is you people keep shitting on a 16 year old girl who is trying to raise AWARENESS. Its silly how many people dont realize that. And it seems all the replies to my comment prove that. Christ. Im not gona repeat myself, just take a good, critical, look at whats happening and get back to me...

The problem is that the little turd is trying to make us aware of something that has been going on for millions of years - climate change! The f---ing climate is going to change whether we like it or not and we will not be able to do anything about it! Do some f---ing research!

I have done what you ask. You should also do the same. Think about this. Why is Greta getting all this attention? Is it because she is a leader in the field of climate study? Is it because she has invented novel methods of ‘solving’ climate change? Is it because of demonstrated ability to solve complex problems?

No.

It is precisely because she is a 16-year-old girl with handicaps. Someone that emotionally driven people have a hard time criticizing. And you have fallen for it. Your comments prove that.

If you want to be respected, pick a standard bearer that knows what they are talking about. The only thing that Greta knows is what the alarmists have told her, and she parrots it faithfully. No someone, in my opinion, who is worth listening too.

Listen, man, its only people like you who think its because shes mentally handicapped. Its your excuse to lambast her for taking a flight for speaking at the UN. Most people who heard of her never knew she had these conditions. Its irrelevant to why she was there. Its only now that you know who she is that youre saying that. Her story was that she wanted to raise awareness about climate change, organized a protest at her own school that caught attention. This attention caught worldwide attention. Thats why she was invited to speak, because she became the voice of thousands if not millions of chlidren protesting for lawmakers to make a change. Think about that for a second. You, and i mean you personally, caught on cause some social media influence taught you to believe she was only there cause she was ”a person with asbergers and funded by soros”. Jesus man, its unfathomable how gullible people are to this propaganda that tries to blacklist people, and blacklist a child who wanted to get the attention of her local government.

My point is that its a child who did the only thing a child can do and its a god damn miracle it caught even the attention it has now. I know flying accounts for 2,5% of emissions. I still fly. Im going to a flight academy. Im not ignorant to whats being portrayed as bad to what is actually bad. My problem is you people calling her an asbergers kid who only got attention cause of some weird US political shit. No man. Read up on the story, read what she tried to accomplish before you even knew her fucking name.

I realise youre a real american guy with the facts, but try to understand the situation beyond what is on the surface

I have read up on her, why do you assume that I didn’t. I knew already all that you are trying to tell me.

Think about this. There are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of others who consider themselves advocating for efforts to combat human caused climate change. Why is it that someone who knows the least is picked by so many as the standard bearer?

Well, let's see... "old men yelling at a 16 year old girl trying to make the world a better place"... you're an old man, you're essentially yelling at a 16 year old girl (oddly triggered by her, actually...). And you yourself have produced exactly zero in the way of supportable facts.

What exactly is it that you're trying to prove again?? I think I've missed it in all the obfuscation you're using to dance around the reality of being scared of change... and apparently, 16 year old girls!

Science works through hypothesis and efforts to prove or disprove. There has been essentially nothing to disprove accepted climate science, save for a few discredited and deeply flawed papers by the people you seem to follow blindly.

But I get it. Much easier to wake up and face the day if you can fool yourself into thinking everything is rosy. No brains, no headaches.

Probably best that you continue life with your blinders on. They're necessary to accept religion too, and I'll wager you're really worried about where you go after death. The notion that there's nothing beyond is probably terrifying.

And I'm sure the idea that we're living in a simulation probably panics you completely... that definitely doesn't track with mainstream religious indoctrination!

“There is nothing to disprove accepted climate science?” What you call “accepted climate science” remains unproven. What you are saying is “there is nothing to disprove what has not been proven”. Isn’t the burden of proof on those who propose the theory?

Of course, if there is no proof, those who are NOT scientists will say, “Well, YOU prove it isn’t true!” But, that’s not how science works.

Bring the proof substantiating the theory or be silent. Your suggestion that it is “just out there” when you don’t provide it suggests you accept whatever you read on the internet.

A major cold wave is sweeping in over the middle and eastern part of the US, predictions are that records will be broken and we have global warming to thank for this, Greta and AOC told us the world will be finished in 12 years, now its down to 10. Time to quit pooping which adds to the CO2 level, throw away those clothes which also add to the CO2, go naked, you will be saving the planet

I wonder what happened to the 'scientists' in the 70s and 80s that predicted that by 2008 the human race would have died out because of the 'rapidly cooling earth', methinks that the current alarmists are on the same trane of thought just on the other end of the thermometer.

Going out on a limb here... admittedly, a really thick and strong one... but I'm guessing you voted for Trump, right? Probably a member of the NRA? Coal roll for fun on weekends? Maybe sporting a mullet?

I checked it out. I found no real science. Instead, I found an avalanche of ‘consensus’. The religious alternative to real science.

Real science is backed by hypothesis that have been experimentally proven. Got any of that? Anything else is just a theory, and as such, REAL SCIENCE says we should all be doubters. Unless, of course, you’ve become a religious convert to the cause, which is how you present yourself.

You have offered no scientific proof of climate Armageddon. And you cannot, because it does not exist. Your blind faith in unproven theories is astounding. Beyond belief in the Tooth Fairy I would suggest.

It always amazes me to see multiple flights going to the same destination from the same airport, some leaving at nearly the same time. Those flights can't all be filled to capacity. And it gets worse when you look at the regional jet swarm. Flying all over the place, often one flight after another, going to the same destination. Seeding the upper atmosphere with damaging exhaust.

Based on your statement the same could be said about all the cars on the road. All are headed in the same direction on the highway. If airplanes, according to the article are only 2.5%, then where is the rest coming from? Aviation is easy to blame but not the major problem.

It's statistically impossible to fill all flights. Airline load factors easily show at least 70% of seats filled. The RJs aren't always full but they burn close to turboprop fuel burns and a lot less fuel per seat on the shorter sectors. That's per seat.

This website uses cookies. By using and further navigating this website, you accept this.

Dismiss

Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?

You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from FlightAware.com. We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.